Letters to the editor for Friday, February 8, 2013

OUR VIEW

Published: Friday, February 8, 2013 at 5:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 6:52 p.m.

Land's preservation is important

The News-Journal's editorial, "Volusia launch site needs boost from space agency," misses some important points that NASA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service are wisely considering. First, describing the site just north of the Volusia County line as "One hundred and fifty acres out of 140,000 ... far less than 1 percent of the NASA land," does not fairly represent its potential for serious environmental and recreation impacts.

The site Space Florida wants for SpaceX is within the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, adjacent to lands where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been restoring habitat for the endangered Florida scrub jay for many years. In order for this restoration project to succeed, this habitat must be regularly subjected to "prescribed fire." A 150-acre site, including possible storage facilities for volatile rocket fuel, in the midst of this restoration area would likely preclude prescribed fire management.

The proposed private launch site is at the northernmost edge of the National Wildlife Refuge and Canaveral National Seashore, and Mosquito Lagoon. NASA has worked with the Department of Interior for decades to minimize the closure of these important recreation resources to the public, by concentrating launch sites on the southern end of the NASA tract.

SpaceX launches across the north part of the refuge, national seashore, and Mosquito Lagoon could cause very frequent closures of important tourist beaches, wildlife viewing and sport fishing areas to the public.

Finally, NASA has vacant land near its current launch sites that could be used for the SpaceX facility. However, SpaceX has expressed a vehement and somewhat peculiar aversion to having the company's personnel, contractors, customers and equipment subjected to federal security clearances at the NASA/Air Force compound. That alone should be cause for concern and skepticism, and is not a good reason to allow the invasion of one of Florida's premier conservation and recreation areas by a potentially damaging and disruptive project.

CHARLES LEE

Maitland

Lee is director of advocacy for Audubon Florida.

Can't handle combat

I'm writing about Kathleen Parker's Jan. 29 column, "A huge mistake."

Parker is right on when she writes that for Congress to enact laws permitting women to qualify for front-line combat duty would be ludicrous and a "huge mistake."

Women inherently are biologically and emotionally different, and more vulnerable than their male counterparts — and physically inferior, as demonstrated in the recent book title "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus."

Women in the the military have contributed mightily in supporting roles to combat troops. It should remain that way.

I can foresee the following scenario that might take place if women were placed in front combat situations with male counterparts: The female soldier would be looking at the male's face and telling him how terrible he looks, after she warned him about his heavy drinking the night before — and telling him to straighten out his jacket and that his helmet is all askew. We want to look good as we face the enemy.

ROBERT T. ANDERSON

Palm Coast

Select women for service

It has been announced that the military is knocking down barriers to women serving in combat. It should be noted that male citizens are required by law to register with the Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday so that a draft can be resumed if needed. So, in the interest of fairness, I am sure that either the Congress, feminist groups, or the ACLU will soon step forward to ensure that women are also given an equal opportunity with their male counterparts to register and be available for the draft.

JOHN HILDEBRANDT

Palm Coast

The price of care

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, President Barack Obama, and Democratic congressional members passed Obamacare behind closed doors and without Republican votes by using parliamentary trickery. After delving into the over 2,000 pages of the law, countless rules, regulations, taxes, fines, and penalties have surfaced. According to figures from the Labor Department, Health and Human Services, the IRS, and the Congressional Budget Office, the outlook for Americans is dismal and the astronomical $1.37 trillion price tag is growing.

Obama repeatedly stressed to the masses that they could keep their current health care — "period." However, he did not address the distinct possibility that businesses would no longer be able to afford the higher costs of this new law, and would prefer to pay a fine rather than insure employees. The latest CBO report projects 7 million people will lose their employer-based health care, up from an estimated 4 million. On the elusive government health exchanges that have yet to be implemented, a typical family of five could incur a yearly insurance premium of a very unaffordable $20,000. This is unrealistic, especially with the poor state of our economy.

Maybe the Democrats in Congress and the president should have taken the time to read the 2,000 pages of the bill before shoving it down the throats of a skeptical public. Disastrous implementation, burdensome regulations, taxes and fines for businesses, and the individual mandate will be so complex that the president hopes to ultimately achieve his deep-seated goal of a nationalized, single-payer, government control of 18 percent of our nation's economy that will threaten our country's fiscal existence. Obamacare's success or failure will define the president's legacy, but we the people will pay the ultimate price.

MADELINE BIZETTE

Port Orange

The price of care

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, President Barack Obama, and Democratic congressional members passed Obamacare behind closed doors and without Republican votes by using parliamentary trickery. After delving into the over 2,000 pages of the law, countless rules, regulations, taxes, fines, and penalties have surfaced. According to figures from the Labor Department, Health and Human Services, the IRS, and the Congressional Budget Office, the outlook for Americans is dismal and the astronomical $1.37 trillion price tag is growing.

Obama repeatedly stressed to the masses that they could keep their current health care — "period." However, he did not address the distinct possibility that businesses would no longer be able to afford the higher costs of this new law, and would prefer to pay a fine rather than insure employees. The latest CBO report projects 7 million people will lose their employer-based health care, up from an estimated 4 million. On the elusive government health exchanges that have yet to be implemented, a typical family of five could incur a yearly insurance premium of a very unaffordable $20,000. This is unrealistic, especially with the poor state of our economy.

Maybe the Democrats in Congress and the president should have taken the time to read the 2,000 pages of the bill before shoving it down the throats of a skeptical public. Disastrous implementation, burdensome regulations, taxes and fines for businesses, and the individual mandate will be so complex that the president hopes to ultimately achieve his deep-seated goal of a nationalized, single-payer, government control of 18 percent of our nation's economy that will threaten our country's fiscal existence. Obamacare's success or failure will define the president's legacy, but we the people will pay the ultimate price.

MADELINE BIZETTE

Port Orange

All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.